V.K. MOHAMMED KUNHI, RTD. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) "SEENA" Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved mainly by Exts. P9, P13 and P15. He had been authorised as per Ext. P1, only minimum pension and minimum gratuity. That too without taking into account the direction contained in Ext. P8 judgment. That is illegal; the petitioner submits. He has retired from service on 30.6.1993. His provident fund amount was not disbursed. It was disbursed only in June, 2000, that too without interest. His request for interest was declined in Ext. P13. The petitioner sought for certain service benefits from 13.5.1991 to 30.6.1993 and that was also declined in Ext. P15. That was why the petitioner has approached this court challenging Exts. P9, P13 and P15.

(2.) EXT . P9 reads that he has been granted a minimum pension of Rs. 375/ - and granted an amount of Rs. 4485/ - towards DCRG. He retired from service on 30.6.1993 while working as an Assistant Engineer. Admittedly he had commenced service on 26.8.1963. He had been granted leave from 20.5.1976 to 17.8.1983 for employment abroad. Thereafter also the petitioner did not join duty. According to him he had applied for leave. But the Board says that his leave has not been sanctioned. The petitioner requested to rejoin duty only on 13.5.1991. But it was rejected. He continued his request, which did not result any order. He was also removed from service without any enquiry. Thereupon he approached this court with O.P. 1606 of 1993, which was allowed as per Ext. P8 quashing the removal order and directing the respondents to disburse the entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner excluding the period of his absence. According to the petitioner there was a clear finding in paragraph 8 of that judgment that he had made a request to rejoining duty on 13.5.1991. But he was not admitted to duty. The order declining permission to rejoin duty, which was marked as Ext. P10 in the said Original Petition was also quashed. It was also held in paragraph 12 of the said judgment that:

(3.) THE petitioner submits that he also ought to have been granted salary for the period from 13.5.1991 to 30.6.1993 during which period, according to him, he was kept illegally out of duty and rejection of this claim in Ext. P6 is illegal.